>> "inside washington" is brought you in part by the american federation of government employees, proud to make america work. for more information about afge and membership, visit afge.org. >> production assistance for "inside washington" was provided by allbritton communications and politico, reporting on the legislative, executive, and political arena. >> i have no evidence at this point, from what i've seen, the

classified information was disclosed. >> this week on "inside washington," a sex scandal at the top of the cia. the benghazi blame game. >> the american people deserve to know the facts. we cannot ever let this happen again. >> why would susan rice not get our vote? i don't trust her. >> defending susan rice. >> senator mccain and senator graham want to go after some big, they should go after me. >> there are no barriers, they to sitting down and working through this process. >> as the fiscal cliff limbs, is there a deal in the works? mitt romney explains why he lost . >> the president's campaign was focused on his base coalition, giving extraordinary gifts from the government, working aggressively to turn them out to vote.

captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> i just don't know where to begin this week. do we talk about republican charges of a cover-up with regard to the fatal attack in benghazi? do we talk about sexual liaisons and e-mails and national security? to talk about israel and gaza. the possibility of a deal to avoid going off the fiscal cliff? let's start with the sex. [laughter] general david petraeus had an affair with his biographer, paula broadwell, a married mother of two pit talk about unlimited access. general petraeus was set to testify as we were recording this program, so we don't know

what he said yet. >> we are safer because of the work that dave petraeus has done. my main hope right now is that he and his family are able to move on, and that this ends up being a single side note on what has otherwise been an extraordinary career. >> ordinary career. david petraeus is a highly decorated -- extraordinary career. david petraeus is a highly decorated general with a ph.d. from princeton university. roger, you have been around for awhile. how does a smart man like that get into a mess like this? >> like he said, let's get to the sex. he is america's spymaster, aside from the degrees and all that. but he decides to conduct an affair through a gmail account, because gosh, nobody can get

access to that except maybe any 12-year-old in america but his power more -- his paramour, a master's degree from harvard, also of west point grad -- decides allegedly to send a threatening e-mails to a woman in florida coup may also be going after general petraeus. she sends these also through a gmail account. shocked to think they got caught. this is doumb and dumber. >> colby, you have military and national security experience. your thoughts on this? >> war is hell and it has taken its toll on our top generals. nothing general petraeus has done detracts from his record. what happened is extremely confusing. the investigation done by the fbi, but they determined there

was no question of loyalty, no national security compromise. they stop. there is another aspect of this thing, suitability for conduct. you can be a patriot, but if you are habitually to excess, that, a problem with the access to classified material. the justice department with all that i don't know why they did it. >> margaret? >> these things are done clandestinely until they are not. love is fleeting, gmamiil isn't. we are addicted to e-mail and we put things in it we don't want to be seen, but we hold the cia director to a higher standard. but i wonder with our military

and political figures, to -- if it is in somewhat to elevated now. divorce is soaring in the military. these deployments are hard on families. people are weak and we are stupid in the throes of a romantic affair. do we want to get rid of people like general petraeus when there is no national security breach? the person who should be fired is that fbi agent and all the people who let that go up the chain of command. >> what do you make of that, nina? >> i hope his career is ruined, because in the normal course of events, human beings are frail. if we get rid of every person in government who has an illicit affair, we will lose some of the best people around, even though we don't like their private conduct. let me just finish. having said that, in the normal course of events, if you are

worried about the compromise of national security, you investigate, you find out there has not been a compromise of national security, you call in the general, you read him the riot act, everybody knows, he can't be blackmailed, it stays at home. >> do we know that national security has not been compromised? >> no, we don't know, because more records has been take -- have been taken from paula broadwell's house. let me address one thing, the whole thing of the flesh is weak. the flesh is weak, but certain people have to be strong. general john allen may have sent 30,000 e-mails, 30,000 pages of e-mails to this socialite -- >> or not. >> interesting term, "tampa socialite." general allen is in charge of

the fate of 82,000 u.s. troops. ofi don't know the content those are, how many came from him, i don't know those things but we don't know the nature of that relationship. quite a different relationship between allen and joe kelly and petraeus and broadwell -- and jill kelley and petraeus and broadwell. >> why didn't the justice department tell the white house what was going on? >> if they had, we would be screaming cover-up at the white house. damned if you do, damned if you don't. bell and sisson, is that he be told when high-level people were under investigation but not tell the president. it would compromise the investigation -- >> there was an election going

on. >> there was, and i agree with nina. you have to be careful that you don't put yourself in the position of the cover-up. what is conduct that is worthy of blackmail? the director of national intelligence, what we all say it is. petraeus could be blackmailed by it and fired by it -- >> the fbi agent thought he was doing his duty. >> he is shirtless and he goes to a congressman because he does not -- >> the only person who comes out of this looking really good is eric cantor -- >> no, no, no, absolutely not! absolutely not. eric cantor was given information and he should talk to the leader, he should have talked to the chairman of the oversight committee.

why did he sit on it? >> he didn't sit on it! >> he did sit on it. he clammed up. >> let me go to general allen. he was in line for a big promotion. now he is twisting in the wind. leon panetta says we are putting this on hold to get this sorted out. what about this guy? >> we don't know. apparently he said, at minimum, flirtatious e-mails with this woman. people who have talked to him to sit there was no affair. we don't even know whether it was a dozen or so, or thousands of month. >> to meet it is not the content .f the e-mail th the figure is 30,000 pages of e-

mails. >> my producers is that is 10 years of "inside washington" scripps. -- scripts. >> i am willing to put some slack, blah blah blah. this guy has an important job to do. he has men and women in the field -- >> you got to give the guy a break. >> i don't know what that 20,000 to 30,000 will hold up. i don't know whether the cc's he got -- we don't know anything about that. we do know his record is good, it's solid, its sound. what other the thing we had a little discussion about, and that is standards to its standards change over time. there was a time that if you were gay, you were a security

risk. they got rid of that. canard at the time, that now it the same thing is true of al adulterous relationships -- >> that is on the book as a violation of military justice. >> i'm sorry, colby. gay rights is not a standard, it is a human right -- >> absolutely -- >> holding someone to the standard of do your job instead of fooling around -- >> there are corporations that don't allow you to do personal emails. this is a lot of time not to spend up fighting the war. >> this guy -- > -- this guy is in a hell hole. >> time of deployments --

>> tom ricks was on our air -- >> great military writer. >> were you surprised? "i was completely surprised." i cannot help but think that having five straight deployment and afghanistan and being cia director, and the stress level and isolation is not in some way responsible for -- >> what about the biographer, margaret? >> petraeus could have chosen is biographer. walter isaacson -- >> tom ricks. >> a woman walks up to you at a lecture dinner, "i want to do research on you," which i guess is a euphemism, and he proceeds

to give her a credible access. i don't want to be one of these people who plans the woman, but there's no need for match.com if i can go around and say, "could i write a book about you," and that is how i am introduced. it was so foolish of them. -- of him. first of all, an inexperienced person -- is not a biographer to come on, colby. >> is the obama administration guilty of a cover-up in the benghazi attack? >> i think she knew better, and if she did no better, she should not be the voice of america. . >> for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence she had received, and to besmirch her reputation, is outrageous. >> they're talking about our

u.n. ambassador, who could be the president's nominee to be secretary of state. this is about her appearance on talk shows on september 16 following the september 11 attacks in benghazi. charles krauthammer, our friend here, who is off this week -- i think he is in miami traveling -- has been hammering away at this for weeks but he said that it was a funny cover story in the run-up to the election. what do we know about this? .> we don't know yet maybe the intelligence committees have some notion, but we really don't know yet. they are still conducting the investigation within the state department. it seems like there were 85 things going on at once. i am not clear on what happened. >> according to some members of the house committee, petraeus told them i fretted that the cia talking points were written after in benghazi where they refer to it as a terrorist attack, but he reportedly said

that the reference was removed by other agencies that make changes in the cia draft. >> i don't see this as the central question, rather for 24 or 48 hours we said it was an attack in response to a movie -- no, it was and. the question was should the consulate, not an embassy, a consulate, have been prepared for an attack? second question, did the president or anyone else order defense forces to stand down and not rescue those people? those are the important questions. >> what do you have instead? two united states senators wailing on the u.n. ambassador, i don't trust her." what happened when the secretary state went before the world in the united nations -- no, no,

colin powell laid out his case for weapons of mass destruction. did anybody comes forward and say, "we don't trust him." >> when it was secretary of state condoleezza rice, they resupported her relying on the intelligence at hand. no reflection on how important this show is, but a u.n. ambassador who had nothing to do with benghazi saying something on a talk show becoming the entire focus of their attention? >> california congressman dana rohrbaugcher -- "what is clear is that this administration, including the president himself, has misinformed -- read 'lied'-- " >> where is the proof?

>> the president needs reasons for drugs and keeping up the war on terror. -- drones and keeping up the war on terror. >> cynical political attack. >> are they trying to turn it into watergate? >> they are trying to turn into anything. john mccain put sarah palin with the heartbeat of the presidency but he cannot vote for susan rice because he cannot trust her. >> i agree with everything said, but i watched her on those shows contemporaneously, and i remember thinking to myself, how does she know this so assuredly? there was a tone to it, almost a battle tone -- >> you read the transcript of her interview with bob schieffer, and there are caveats all through -- "based on what we know now." she was working from talking

points from the administration. >> you are never going to satisfy charles krauthammer and with that. >> i will try, for goodness' sake. >> we would like to avoid another recession and rising unemployment if possible. >> there is only one way to solve these challenges, and that is to do it together i am open to compromise and i am open to new ideas. >> i think the spirit of cooperation you have seen over the last week from myself and my team, democrats across the aisle, the president, have created an atmosphere where i remain optimistic. >> isn't that nice? [laughter] >> pieces at hand in the republican caucus -- peace is at hand in the republican caucus? bill kristol and others saying

and do we really want to be the party defending tax cuts for people with car elevators? this is not the position they want to be in. if i were obama, i would get them in a room and keep them there. >> interesting when you watch what is going on right now. obama does this nice balance between i am open to everything but i am drawing one redline, the millionaires -- >> i don't hear him changing on that. >> he's not kidding people being really tough in di -- is not. the people being the top of the democrats in the -- in really tough are the democrats in the house and senate. >> boehner as a caucus that has dug in its heels on any kind of compromise. the picture of the john boehner,

this cartoon character, holding a football, saying to president obama, "trust me it." >> you know, there was an election on november 6, and the democrats did not do that badly. who gives here? >> everybody has got to give. >> you say it and say and say, but you cannot tax your way out of this debt and you cannot slash expenses and get out of this and get rid you have got to do both. >> someone gradually. >> president seems to be offering a two-for-one deal, for every $1 of tax increase, he will cut taxes by two dollars. simpson-bowles wanted a one-to-3 ratio. publicans 10. -- republicans want zero.

>> business community does not want us to go over the cliff. >> what the republicans amenable to increases in taxes -- >> use the word "revenue." >> you had nancy pelosi taking the position -- $1 million, not $250,000. john mccain has suggested make it $500,000. that is where the movement is going to come, with that number. >> is there a deal in the works behind closed doors that we don't know about? >> i don't think so. public posturing at this point. >> here is the difference since the election. the tea party is not as strong as it was. yes, the members who came back one at gerrymandered districts, but speaker boehner has more control of his caucus this time. >> mitt romney explains why

president obama won the election. >> what the president is give them two things -- one, big gift on immigration with the dream act and the amnesty program. no. 2, he put in place obamacare, which basically is $10,000 a family. >> mitt romney explaining to his biggest donors why he lost the election. gov. bobby jindal, chris christie, they don't like that kind of talk. >> well, it is politically suicidal. every once in awhile in my reporterial life i think, you are an idiot -- maybe he misspoke and we were doing him a disservice. no, that is what he meant and he said it again. >> towards the end of the campaign he was -- >> much more magnanimous.

>> it was a question of trust, and people recognized early on that mitt romney was not someone to be trusted. he revealed himself in that 47%, and paul ryan did the same thing talking about takers and givers. what he did it is disconfirm t -- just to confirm that this is who he is. >> where does the party go from here? does it need to brebuild? >> yes, it needs to rebuild. romney and the republicans have become the rip van winkle party could they have awakened from their slumber to find that there are black and brown people in america and the jews and asians, and somehow they have all been given the vote. how did this happen? [laughter] they have been bribed. they have been giving gifts to these strange people. >> they are all special interest groups.

they are not part of the whole. nine people getting some relief - -- young people getting some relief -- >> but you have responsible republicans saying we need to reach more to hispanics -- >> marco rubio said yesterday, "i don't know these people who don't want to work." these republican governors, if you are in a gerrymandered house is to, you could do the 47%. if you are part with any presidential aspirations, you cannot keep saying it's about people. >> it will take more than cosmetics and photo ops. it is policy. that is what they have to come to grips with, the policy. their policies don't wash with people. the people they need to reach. >> the first thing they need to do is immigration reform. >> we will see what happens in 2014 but i would not write them off entirely.

>> i am not writing them off, but the first thing to do is get immigration reform bill -- >> gender weres -- jan brewers in their party. >> last word. see you next week. >> "inside washington" is brought you in part by the american federation of government employees, proud to make america work. for more information about afge and membership, visit afge.org.